Chomper Higgot

Nice try.

The outcome of stripping people of their cultural heritage is very clearly demonstrated world wide. The problems within native Canadian communities are mirrored by those in Native American communities, Native Australian Communities, Native New Zealand Communities. Denial of the impacts of the past on the present is patently nonsense, but entirely in keeping with the body of your comments in this thread.

I doubt the winner of the leadership contest will call an early election, the party is split down the middle and the candidates are each either side of that split.

Not at all, I’m basing my comments on those of Liz Truss’ own economic guru, Prof. Patrick Minford.

Excellent news for the opposition, dreadful news for the country. Her tax plans will strip public services of the funds they need while driving up inflation. The inevitable outcome will be increased interest rates hitting home buyers and all who are struggling with debt.

There’s a reason why some Brits weren’t working during the time the UK was in the EU. It’s the same reason why they are still not working now the UK is out of the EU.

They aren’t in it for the comon man.

‘Planned and systematic’. The evidence is in the systematic outcome. Same outcome, multiple locations.

Odd what you chose to take away from that news piece.

It’s not anybody here’s responsibility to offer alternatives. You’ve spent pages defending the indefensible. And once again it isn’t a matter of individual staff failures, this was a planned and systematic program of abuse:

Trump spoke, the crowd booed. Not for the first time either. Trump being booed by his supporters is a thing, it looks like it’s become a trend.

But there seems to be only you that believes that Turkey is a new member of the EU. And I don’t know anyone in the ‘Remain’ camp that doesn’t understand Johnson, Rees Mogg and their chums to be the very Elite you keep banging on about.

‘New EU countries like Turkey’ Is that one of those lies you are referring to?

Pathetic hyperbole strawman argument. To my comment ‘There were no good intentions’ you leap into “If the intention was to kill all the native people, they did a pretty poor job of it”. I’ve not seen anything that dissuades me from my initial assessment of your intentions, and much to reaffirm it.

Which economists claim to make 100% [certain] claims about the future?

OK, so I was wrong to take your statement on your experience at face value.

It’s a very narrowly defined fact. Economic forecasts are made with attendant statements on degrees of certainty. Predictions within the state degrees of certainty are not ‘wrong’. Taking your claim that you have have experience in economics at face value, then you already know this which gives rise to the obvious question ‘why do you choose to omit this salient piece of information’?

It wasn’t his job to ferment an attack on the Capitol either.

They were not protestors. Have you come across the term ‘enemies, foreign and domestic’?

You said: ”the USA law regards them as being USA citizens protesting ” No US law does not.

Wrong again. Violent assault on the Capitol is not in any sense a ‘lawful protest’.

There were no good intentions.

I already stated I do not believe Trump will face any charges of Treason. You need to re-read what the Constitution has to say about Treason, ‘an act of war’ is not a necessary pre-requisite to bring charges of Treason. Trump is very clearly under investigation by the DoJ, I suggest waiting for the outcome of those investigations.

But you have misrepresented the legal definition of Treason.

That’s not correct. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 That said, I don’t believe Trump will be charged with ‘Treason’. Sedition, conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to disrupt the lawful business of government, witness tampering, unlawful removal of state secrets, tax evasion, wire fraud, yes, treason, no. Not even the Rosenbergs were charged with treason, though in his pre (death) sentencing summary Judge Kaufman did explicitly refer to the Rosenberg’s treason. And there’s the rub. Regardless of what the legally and constitutional definition of treason is there is an equally valid lay understanding of treasonous acts that absolutely do have a place in discussion of Trump’s behavior.